October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1221
Does a state divorce decree override federal law to change a life insurance beneficiary?
A state court order conflicts with a federal statute that locks in a named beneficiary.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Ruttenberg argued federal interest ends once proceeds are paid.
Mr. Johnson argued federal law grants an absolute right to the beneficiary.
Ms. Goldenberg argued the state order attempts to bypass federal preemption.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether state law can alter federal insurance rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the state court order to control the payout.
the opposing side wants the federal statute to control the payout.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues state law can change the beneficiary after divorce.
the opposing side argues federal law creates an absolute right for the named beneficiary.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if Congress would have left money with the first wife.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the divorce exception generalizes to all cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
Why it matters
This dispute determines who receives federal life insurance proceeds after a divorce.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 39, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 39, lines 25-49
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.